Latest HR Trends: Gender Pay Gap, Training investment, Women representation, Bias, Salary negotiation, Return to office, Remote work, CEO

?? Hello Everyone and Happy Sunday !?

?? Welcome back to the?18th edition?of Weekly People Research! ???

In this new edition,?you will learn more about :

??Why companies believe that ‘carrots’ work better than ‘sticks’ about Return to office? Payscale researchers give us wonderful insights about RTO.

?? Why do global CEOs want employees to return to the office by the end of 2026 and how will they motivate employees? KPMG researchers give us some very interesting ways.

?? Why companies must have a significant representation of women in the company and not just in top leadership and how can they achieve this? 麦肯锡 and Lean In researchers provide us some insightful advices.

?? Why is it important for women and men to negotiate their salaries fairly and how can companies restore equality in the salary offer? Resume Builder researchers share with us their interesting latest trend.

??Why are small and medium-sized businesses so far behind in adopting modern HR solutions? Mineral researchers explain us these reasons.

??Finally, you'll understand why investing in employee training will drastically reduce the cost of recruiting and staffing processes? The Hackett Group Inc. researchers brilliantly share their recommendations.

These insights continue to evolve as we all learn more - as Dave Ulrich said wonderfully.

???Now, let's do a recap of the week on published research:

Global CEOs predict a Full Return To Office (RTO) by the end of 2026 and will reward employees with promotions and salary increases!

?? Findings of researchers:

Despite increased demand for flexibility from employees and talents, the message from CEOs is clear: Everyone must return to the office full time within 3 years !

The trend we talked about a few weeks ago with a ResumeBuilder.com study and survey is now confirmed with a new study- these researchers predicted that 90% of companies will push employees back to office by the end of 2024 - but major companies through the voice of their CEO want employees to return full time to office and are signaling their support of pre-pandemic ways of working, with 64% anticipating a full return to office is only three years away.

??To achieve this result, they plan to reward employees who come to office with promotions and salary increases, according to a new interesting research published by KPMG using data from a survey of 1,325 CEOs from 11 different countries and 11 key industry sectors between 15 August and 15 September 2023.

?? Recommendation of researchers:

??This new KPMG research underscores the persistence of traditional office-centric thinking among CEOs. It comes against a backdrop of the debate surrounding hybrid working, which has had a largely positive impact on productivity over the past three years and has strong employee support, particularly among the younger generation of workers.

As organizations continue to roll out their return-to-office plans, researchers believed that it's crucial that leaders take a long-term view that embraces the employee value proposition (EVP) and encompasses the considerations and needs of employees to ensure that talent is nurtured and supported.

???? What were the expert opinions:

Thanks for sharing more research on where and how people work (hybrid). I think most companies will discover a policy that balances needs of the business with employees based on the individual circumstances. Again, see work by Nick Bloom who has studied work from home (WFH) for decades. What is interesting for me is how CEOs are seeing some of the current social agendas like DEI and ESG. They are working to navigate the paradox of social and economic agendas. Navigating this paradox has implications for both how organizations and individuals achieve their goals, according to Dave Ulrich

It's like organizations are now trying to put the genie back in the bottle and it will be a battle of the wills. The people that feel strongly working from home will do all the can to make this part of their reality - even if it means moving to other organizations. A couple of questions immediately came to mind. 1. Will this even be legal? I see a world of pain coming potentially - but hey that is one for the experts in that space. 2. In a world where we need more connection and engagement between roles/teams/functions, decisions to favor people who return to the office with sweeteners, is not going to be helpful. Wonder how CEO's will plan for the fallout? according to Ali Uren ??

In the evolving world of work, the future of hybrid arrangements hinges on the delicate balance between business productivity, performance outcomes, and strategic alignment. It's not just about where and how we work, but how these choices align with our broader organizational goals. HR has a pivotal role in harmonizing the business and employee strategy. Incentivizing the return to the office can be a win-win, but it all boils down to transparency and outcomes. Employees need to see the value, and organizations need tangible results. Return to office policies should be clear, purposeful and mutually beneficial, according to Shiroz Hamid (CAHRI)

I’ve seen several surveys where executives in organizations would like employees to return to fully on-site work. That would be a disaster in terms of well-being and retention in my opinion. It has now more or like become a hygiene factor to have some level of flexibility at work. Yet, leading in the world of on-site, hybrid and remote work brings unique challenges:→ Ensuring team cohesiveness.→ Building and maintaining trust.→ Nurturing human connections.→ Preserving organizational culture. Research indicates that fully remote work is 10% less productive than on-site, while hybrid work seems to have neutral impact on productivity and may increase it. This Table from excellent HBR article shows that fully remote and hybrid work are anticipated by US executives to rise the next 5 years: My prediction is that a balanced hybrid model with some days of work in office and some days working from home will prevail as a norm going forward. Key here is however to provide some level of flexibility in my opinion, according to Christian Madsen

What is interesting about these surveys is the absence of solid business rationale for bringing everyone back to the office. Giving pay raises and promotions hides the fact that these CEOs really don’t have a solid argument if that’s what they resort to, according to Rick Lochner

Yet again I have to say that remote/hybrid working is not new. Unfortunately many employers were 'thrown into' the need to introduce remote working during the COVID Pandemic but did not have the experience required to manage the individual silos that it created in a way that added value (to the customer or the organization). As I have said, many times, remote working needs a totally different thought-process from both the employer and the employee. An example being implicit (unstructured) learning. Even working remotely, staff will pick up knowledge that would normally be readily available for people to pick up in the workplace. It is now down to the employee to recognize the learning that could be advantageous to share with others and to put that learning into context. Hybrid working, where people are brought into the office on a regular basis, provides a great opportunity for that learning to be passed on to others and for work related problems to be examined and resolved. However, I am not sure that employers are taking full advantage of this opportunity. The level of value being generated in a remote environment is going to be very much dependent upon the culture and style of leadership within the organization, according to George Kemish LLM MCMI MIC MIoL

Let's wait and see what happens. Nobody knows what will happen, according to Santi LG

I just wrapped up research on this very topic, too. I don't think the will of CEOs can overcome the employee groups' desire for hybrid & remote. Hybrid will prevail. Many CEOs ate their words when they tried to bring people back so far. The key to a productive & thriving workplace is autonomy and flexibility. Using those drivers to guide the return to the office movement is critical for its balanced success. An organization is comprised of many employees & only one replaceable CEO. My advice to the CEO is to listen to your employees, LynnAnn B.

I'm going to point out the obvious irony regarding these two topics: remote and hybrid opens up an expanded talent pool, and can have a positive impact on diversity in the workplace. So the "Hey, we need more diversity" but "Hey, we need people back in the office" mantras of CEOs rings hollow to me. I know there is much hand-wringing about how those who are remote/hybrid can get fewer opportunities than their in-office colleagues, and the first study here essentially says "Yep, that's true, and we're ok with it." What are those impacts on diversity? Hybrid/remote companies have access to a more diverse talent pool, and with intention and focus can ensure that ALL employees have the same opportunities, further improving diversity efforts, according to Cynthia Farrell

While it’s hard to argue against survey sentiments, couple of pints for consideration:1?? CEO predictions may certainly have a powerful influence on future paths, but, as Dave Ulrich has commented, leaders are navigating paradox. There’s significant momentum for hybrid arrangements, and this will have a profound impact on how companies will ultimately configure work arrangements. 2?? CEO tenure with companies has on average been going down. 3 years from now, we will likely see another cast of CEOs, and what do they think about the future of work. 3?? Virtual and some form of remote work arrangements provide companies with agility to pivot during any crisis. Business continuity is a major factor in considering options. I argue that having this agility through practice of virtual + hybrid gives companies the flexibility to pivot. 4?? Business offerings more than anything will dictate work arrangements. Manufacturing, retail, health services, and other business rely on people working in shared physical space. The debates will continue, and studies are point in time pictures. The future is not a straight line. In the meantime, let’s encourage dialogue, according to Tony Scida

New WFH and remote Work findings: There is clear correlation between Inability to work remotely and Employee attrition !

?? Findings of researchers:

Remote Work impacts talent attraction and retention strategies (TA&R) as well as compensation management strategy.

The inability to work remotely has been correlated with a 14% increase in intent to leave and organizations with return-to-office mandates stand to risk losing - through termination or attrition - their more highly paid employees.

Moreover, employees who can work remotely as needed are 22% less likely to quit than fully remote workers and 32% less likely to quit compared to fully on-site workers. So employers believe ‘carrots’ work better than ‘sticks.’ For HR leaders, the primary culprits of declination of productivity are higher than average turnover and insufficient pay but only 57% of organizations said they measure productivity, and only 10% do so tangibly. but majority of organizations don't reward employees for increased productivity, according to a new interesting research published by Payscale using data from 309,971 employees with on online salary survey between August 2021 and August 2023, in addition to data from a survey of 980 employers fielded between July and August 2023.

?? Recommendation of researchers:

Finally, a sizable portion of the population (47%) say they continue to expect more organizations to offer remote work in their field after the pandemic ends. This research confirms that control over one’s day-to-day working environment is a strong variable in retaining workers. This research find that intent to leave a job is higher among those who work remotely full-time compared to those who work partially remote.

?? The results of this research also suggest that being either fully remote or fully in-office are both less effective for retaining workers compared to hybrid working environments.

These findings align with recent research done by Gartner , and by a team lead by Nick Bloom Professor of Economics at Stanford University . Also as Nick said, the most persuasive data are from the markets - but also in the companies themselves based on this new research.

???? What were the expert opinions:

Again fascinating research. Obviously, WFH received increased attention during pandemic, but it is not new. Nick Bloom has studied hybrid work and WFH for some time. It has benefits for the right situation: job requirements and personal circumstances. it also has risks of lack of mentorship, teamwork, acculturation, etc. The reason this research is so helpful is that it begins to identify when WFH works and how to engage employees by offering what matters most to them (personalization) regardless of where they work. I believe that the boundaries of "work" are less the place (office vs. WFH) or the tools (technology vs. face to face), but the ability for an employee to see how their work delivers value to customers. If an employee sees a line of sight between what they do to what a customer receives, the employee is "at work" and likely to be positively engaged, according to Dave Ulrich

Unfortunately many employers were 'thrown into' the need to introduce remote working during the COVID Pandemic but did not have the experience required to manage the individual silos that it created in a way that added value (to the customer or the organization). As I have said, many times, remote working needs a totally different thought-process from both the employer and the employee. An example being implicit (unstructured) learning. Even working remotely, staff will pick up knowledge that would normally be readily available in for people to pick up in the workplace. It is now down to the employee to recognize the learning that could be advantageous to share with others and to put that learning into context. Hybrid working, where people are brought into the office on a regular basis, provides a great opportunity for that learning to be passed on to others and for work related problems to be examined and resolved. However, I am not sure that this has been happening. The level of value being generated is going to be very much dependent upon the culture and style of leadership, according to George Kemish LLM MCMI MIC MIoL

Employee retention is a complex equation, and there's rarely a single factor at play. Remote work decisions, in particular, have shifted from a business case to a prominent feature, largely driven by the pandemic's circumstances. Now, as the situation evolves, it falls on HR professionals to help employees understand the bigger picture and adapt to the changing landscape. An interesting perspective is that just as organizations strive to bring customers back, they should equally focus on retaining their valuable employees, according to Shiroz Hamid (CAHRI)

It's an interesting time for employers. And fascinating to see which ones are embracing remote work vs which ones are mandating it with very little genuine reason other than citing the need for "collaboration". Before I was remote, I worked in an office where I spent a considerable amount of time working "remotely" as our teams were global. Being in the office really needs to add value for both the employer and the employee or this will continue to drive more experienced away, according to Kirsty Jagielko

Hybrid working is given & going the stay. WFH is best suited for some roles & should continue (without moonlighting). However, there is lot of work for HR & Tech. Flexibility is the key along with personalization. Whatever said & done Business objectives needs to be met at faster pace. There is no “one-size-fits-all” solution for retention but sharing 3 clear pillars:1. Consistent (inclusive) Employee Experience. (Forced EVP)2. Career & Learning3. Purpose communication by leaders with Values & sharing the direction - also clarifying queries, according to Dr. Bhanukumar Parmar

Companies with strong women’s representation across the pipeline have better business outcomes!

?? Findings of researchers:

Women and especially women of color remain underrepresented across the corporate pipeline but the number of women in the C-suite has increased from 17 to 28%, and the representation of women at the VP and SVP levels has also improved significantly.

?? Both, men and women see flexibility as a “top 3” employee benefit and critical to their company’s success but compared to women, men are more likely to be “in the know,” receive the mentorship and sponsorship they need, and have their accomplishments noticed and rewarded when they work on-site. Less than half of companies track the outcomes of career development programs by gender and race combined, and fewer than 1 in 5 do so for sponsorship and mentorship programs. Companies need to do more to de-bias their performance review processes, according to a new interesting research published by McKinsey & Company and Lean In using data from more than 27,000 employees from 33 companies and and 270 senior HR leaders were surveyed on their workplace experiences coming from 276 companies across the United States and Canada.

?? Recommendation of researchers:

Researchers recommend the actions below for leaders to support and advance women as they should focus on five below core areas:

1?? Tracking outcomes for women’s representation

2?? Empowering managers to be effective people leaders

3?? Addressing microaggressions head on

4?? Unlocking the full potential of flexible work

5?? Fixing the broken rung, once and for all

???? What were the expert opinions:

Interesting see some data to support D&I, gender balance is still a challenge for majority of companies and unfortunately still the majority take this as bureaucratic exercise required by ESG investors instead of understand the powerful value of Diversity, according to Luigi Bellopede

Your posts on the last two days reinforce the social agenda for including DEI as part of an organizations work culture and practices. The work has also done a very nice job navigating the social and economic paradox by showing how DEI drives economic value. our work on diversity we have found four stages of diversity that move towards it being a fundamental assumption of effective leadership. This research reaffirms why this DEI work is worth doing. Hopefully, this work will encourage progress in creating organizations where everyone has opportunities to thrive, according to Dave Ulrich

Why is it that we need to categorise people? If those in leadership positions identified the stage of development for each individual employee, provided the 'right' support for their development (irrespective of gender, race etc) and based their feedback to the employee on the employee's individual progress (as opposed to comparing one employee against another), then surely everyone would be treated as equal. Equality comes down to the way in which you treat people - if everyone is being supported in the progression of their career then it comes down to the individual as to how far they wish to progress (not everyone wants to be a CEO but they do want to feel that they are being recognized for their contribution and treated fairly). Would this not eradicate the need to tailor career development to specific genders (which, if I were female, I think that I would find condescending and could be seen as discriminatory by their male counterparts). I have had many women bosses who have 'outshone' many of the male bosses for whom I have worked. Let's not under-estimate the capability of the female employee by placing them in a category of their own as if they are incapable of making their own way, according to George Kemish LLM MCMI MIC MIoL

Such inspirational research ! according to Miroslava Rychtárechová and Matú? Draganovsky

It is very tempting to deduce causalities from correlations. But also in this case, which came first - chicken or egg? It is not enough if I (personally like to) believe that diversity makes successful on different levels. It is important to demonstrate WHY this is so: what details, measures, dependencies, hierarchies, etc....Otherwise, this is also how people argue from correlation: Only successful companies can afford to hire women as managers, for example. This is where the backroom agreement comes from: In times of crisis, it is better to hire men, according to Dr.-Ing. Meike Wiarda

Majority of Small to midsized businesses (SMBs) HR leaders rely on spreadsheets and email to manage HR initiatives!

?? Findings of researchers:

SMBs are still relying on the basic tools that have been around since the 1980s.

?? Most small business leaders (73%) are relying on spreadsheets and email to track and assess many of their HR operations, while nearly half (49%) either don’t use or don’t know about automation and technology tools, including AI, to free up employees for more high-value work. SMB HR leaders named clearly integration challenges as their top concern about new technology, according to a new interesting research published by Mineral entitled "Mineral State of HR survey" using data from 750 businesses Leaders with 1 to 3,000 employees, representing nine industries gathered by SMB Group .

?? Recommendation of researchers:

Finally, researchers found that SMBs can more effectively future-proof their organizations by prioritizing three strategic investments:

?? Modernize HR operations.

?? Recruit and retain the best people.

?? Find and fill gaps in business productivity

???? What were the expert opinions:

This is such an awesome post Nicolas ! I didn't realize there was such a big gap with SMB. I think a good way to make progress is to pilot programs: Before fully adopting a new HR system, SMBs can run pilot programs to test the system and train a select group of employees. You don't have to invest as much and you can tweak the solution based on results or completely pull the plug. Once the pilot is successful, it can be rolled out to the rest of the company, according to Nelly Lund

Leadership support for HR technological solutions isn't just about knowledge; it's also about recognizing the dollars-and-cents payoff. It's not merely about the tech itself but also the attitude towards HR initiatives. HR professionals play a crucial role in showing the before-and-after impact in numbers, making the case for technological investment clear and compelling, according to Shiroz Hamid (CAHRI)

Fascinating research, thanks for sharing. The challenges identified about lack of innovative technology adoption for SMEs may be lack of competence of HR professionals, poor business support, weak cost/benefit by not seeing all the benefits of technology for the required work, or ???While I would agree that technology is an amazing enabler for where, when, how, and what work is done, sometimes I wonder if advocates for new technology fall into the trap of a means/end inversion. Using innovative technology is not the end (goal), but a means (set of tools) to accomplish work. Sometimes, low tech may still get work done just fine. I confess that i still use 3*5 post it notes for my daily and weekly to do lists. While I know there are remarkable apps for scheduling, this works for me. Again, great research that evokes reflection on adopting technology as a means to improving work, according to Dave Ulrich

Not surprising considering majority of company are medium/Small size enterprises and cost of technology need to be justified as ROI. The issue of lack of technology remain the quality/quantity of data impacting people decision driven subjectively instead than objectively, according to Luigi Bellopede

While many large corporations are more likely to run their people function with relevant technological infrastructure, it's important to note that similar challenges can hinder even these giants if they haven't embraced the digital HR transformation. In the case of small and medium-sized businesses, my own experiences have revealed two predominant scenarios. First, some of these businesses may not perceive the need, whether due to valid reasons or misconceptions, to invest in HR technologies. Second, others recognize the potential benefits of such investments but often struggle to articulate a compelling business case to justify the investment, according to Tanguy Dulac

It always baffles my mind how many large scale organizations that I work are still using Excel...Their feedback to me is that it costs too much and they have no budget...But they are all considering the move...Weigh up the opportunity cost and efficiencies and economies of scale that can be achieved is key for them to assess...according to Evan Kagan

It's the year 2023 & so many large companies (not just the small and medium sized ones) are doing mission-critical business processes in an unscalable way with spreadsheets that have been around since the 1980s. In terms of the risk and lack of resilience it builds into company's business processes, it's frightening & my reaction is that of gallows humor, according to Jon Pennington, MBA, Ph.D.

I just had a flashback to managing the performance ratings, merit increases and bonus payouts for 400+ people on a spreadsheet because our HR system didn’t have those capabilities. There were tears, oh yes, there were tears. Our lack of technology wasn’t due to lack of knowledge or skills. I’d say it was due to 1) fast growth that got ahead of us and 2) lack of funding. As for the first reason, that’s why companies should invest early rather than wait until you now desperately need it and have a big problem to solve. 3) when you are an SMB hoping to get acquired, there can be an attitude of "We don't want to invest in that because whoever acquires us will already have something, and we want to preserve cash." Understandable yet short sighted, according to Cynthia Farrell

When talking about modernizing HR Ops at small businesses, I often call upon the business leaders to think about the high-value / meaningful work that they are missing out by still holding on to manual processes. And, yes, I’ve found that the biggest barriers to adoption are the lack of knowledge about the existence of such technology and distrust of tech, according to Jay Polaki?? SHRM-SCP/SPHR

Organizations that invest in employee Training help reduce costs in the recruiting and staffing process by 49% !

?? Findings of researchers:

Like technology, talent requires continuous investment or it becomes obsolete.

Digital World Class? organizations - those that perform in the top quartile in both business value and operational excellence - are both more efficient and more effective in developing people and skills. They achieve 49% lower recruitment and staffing process costs than peers. These companies realize additional benefits from their investment in training in areas such as employee engagement, customer experience, internal promotions and turnover. But...while executives clearly understand the criticality of investing in talent, they are challenged to do so against the current backdrop of economic volatility and corporate cost cutting. In such environments, researchers believed that training is often one of the first areas targeted for cuts, according to a new interesting research published by The Hackett Institute using data from their internal clients.

?? Recommendation of researchers:

?? Finally researchers recommend three below steps leaders can take now to make sure their organization gets maximum benefit from its training investment:

1?? Develop a good picture of the skills you have today relative to those you do need and will need in the future.

2?? Establish mechanisms for measuring training effectiveness. The most mature organizations understand that there is no singular metric for defining return on investment (ROI) in training.

3?? Work with your organization to take a long-term view of training – ensuring that stakeholders understand the central role it plays in enabling their major investments in technology and digital transformation, and the implications of cutting back temporarily to reduce costs.

???? What were the expert opinions:

It's true that there is a lack of understanding about the value of learning and growth initiatives so we need to paint a compelling picture. When we are measuring the outcomes of learning and growth, we must also put mechanisms in place to measure impacts as well. These are the factors that relate to humans and includes:- behavior and actions - mindset and attitude - quality of high value work produced - the style and manner of how roles are delivered - how teams and functions are connecting - the language and words people are using with one another - the stories they are telling about the organization and their place/role within it Measuring these impacts have been essential to delivering a Collective OD approach. It's one of the most interesting and valuable elements, according to Ali Uren ??

To maximize the value of training, both organizations and employees must invest deliberate, quality time in skill development. While training boosts commitment and engagement, shareholders seek concrete results achievable through intentional efforts. We can transform the organization into a learning hub by nurturing internal experts and incentivize employees to put their newfound knowledge into practice. It's a recipe for continuous growth and success, according to Shiroz Hamid (CAHRI)

Great post. Your team are the most important investment you'll ever make in your business. Invest in your people first, and they will bring the results you want, according to Gemma Atkinson

The impact of training on personal and business outcomes is very relevant and confirms research by Patti Phillips and Jack Phillips, PhD and others. I would expect it is not just the amount of training (days, budget), but also the quality of training .--- what it focuses on, who delivers, who attends, how delivered, etc. --- that leads to the positive results. Also, our research has found that human capability initiatives have varying degrees of impact, where some organizations have more impact by investing in training, others in acquisition, others in employee experience, etc. Finally, Mark Huselid found that human capability impact came from high performing work systems, or when training and the other HR initiatives were integrated (see chart0.Again, the The Hackett Group Inc. has a legacy of very good research and this research continues that heritage. Thanks for sharing, according to Dave Ulrich

This is one of the favorite subjects to discuss on ROI on training. In general organizations believe investing in training doesn't give an effective return on investment . But this requires close monitoring and actions need to be initiated based on the results at different stages to get the desired result. There is no doubt learning is a continuous process but organizations are still in a dilemma to believe and invest for training. Interestingly training helps in reducing costs in the recruiting and staffing process is a best method but it's a long term result, according to Thirumalesh Kumar A S

I agree that training helps reduce cost & also learning attracts people.- 2007-8, financial crisis, I witnessed slash in training cost.- However, 2020 covid challenges the cost of learning went up & to an extent learning was available for free in form of webinar’s. (People got together to save the world)- CFO: What happens if we train people & they leave? CHRO: What happens if we don’t train them & they stay? according to Dr. Bhanukumar Parmar

I don't invest in my employees so they can provide value to MSH. I invest in my employees so they can be free to do whatever they need to do to be their best person at work. And it should be the same in ALL organizations. Progression and development - BEYOND what they need to do for your organization - is what every employee wants, according to Oz Rashid

Investing in talent is absolutely crucial for business success. Especially investing in their leaders. Are businesses jeopardizing their future by cutting training programs? And part of mentoring leaders' growth plans would include developing leadership skills through learning, practice, and application, such as presenting, public speaking, and communication skills, according to Kathleen Pietersen

An excellent way to keep doing training is in-house training done by the same employees. Also it is a very good way for people to connect, according to Santi LG

Yes, training can be costly in time and expense but is essential if both the individual and the organization is to be developed. However, how many employers are aware of the skills and experience that are already 'lurking' in their organization? How often are we told by recruiters to tailor our job applications to the post for which we are applying? What skills are being left out that may be useful to the employer in the future? My advice to employers is to carry out a skills audit - if people already have the skills required then the cost can be reduced by allowing these skilled people to pass on their skills to others. We also need to be mindful of implicit learning (unstructured learning that takes place in the workplace) and to encourage employees to identify such learning, put it into context and pass it on to other, according to George Kemish LLM MCMI MIC MIoL

The cause of the Gender Pay Gap may lie in Women's lack of negotiation!

?? Findings of researchers:

Intimidation tops reasons for why women choose not to negotiate their salary

Nearly half of men say they negotiated their compensation within the past two years while only about one-third of women did. Researchers believed that women are intimidated by negotiating because in many cases they suffer from imposter syndrome. 55% of men who negotiated vs. 42% of women who negotiated say they achieved exactly what they wanted, according to a new interesting research published by ResumeBuilder.com and conducted online by the survey platform Pollfish using data from 1,417 full-time employees on September 7, 2023.

Researchers found top reasons women considered negotiating but chose not to are:

??The fear of losing the job or offer (34%)

??Being too intimidated (33%)

??The offer already being more than they were previously making (30%).

??Know that the new company couldn't afford it (19%)

??The offer was more than I could get elsewhere (18%)

?? Recommendation of researchers:

Researchers also provide below recommendations for salary negotiation. :

• Unless you are in a situation where the salary is set, there is always room for negotiation and most companies expect it to happen
• If the offer isn’t what you need, there is no need to be fearful of negotiation.
• Before you start a job search, it’s helpful to know what you want your target salary to be and try not to take interviews that don’t fall in line with your needs
• People should be encouraged to ask !

???? What were the expert opinions:

Thanks for including us here Nicolas BEHBAHANI . Our surveys are convenience surveys to track trends and to see if there is a there there...and there is here. An important topic that women must address to compete and gain the financial rewards they are entitled to! according to Stacie Haller

I appreciate you referencing other research that contradicts what we found. I'm always curious to dive into the details of the participants as well. Our research spanned multiple age groups and education levels, which can impact whether people can or will negotiate. As others have mentioned, these conversations are essential to help hiring managers recognize their biases. At the end of the day, the companies have the information for current employees and the market to be able to make fair and equitable offers regardless of gender or ability to negotiate, according to Julia K. Toothacre MS

Thank you for highlighting such an important topic. While I believe that all parties should take actions to make the salary negotiation process more equitable (candidate, recruiter, hiring manager, HR, external institutions), I find the following findings of multiple studies disturbing and fascinating: the “social cost” of negotiation is significant for women and not significant for men. Assuming this can be largely attributed to an unconscious bias rather than a conscious decision to discriminate a candidate based on their gender, it once again confirms that organizations must work on creating awareness about unconscious bias and Upskilling employees involved in people decisions to reduce or spot the bias, according to Anastasiia Kolos

A few thoughts;1. I think if you look at High potential lists of most organizations, you will find women are under-represented on those lists. That is a factor that plays into pay gaps.2. This pay gap is not going away, unless organization have a strategic plan to address it, according to Asad Husain

It is always interesting to see more than one set of findings from research on the same subject - especially when they are contradictory. I'm not sure that there is a straight answer to the gender pay gap. For instance, if employers are taking into consideration such things as differences in experience or skills, would this then be seen as a pay gap - given that there might be added expense in providing the career development required to bring them up to speed? However, that should be the same for both male and female employees. Interesting research but I think that I would want to delve deeper into the reasons for differences in pay - I'm not sure that lack of negotiation plays a major role - but have no doubt that some employers may discriminate. Difficult subject - Thank you for sharing, according to George Kemish LLM MCMI MIC MIoL

Thanks again for sharing. I really like reporting these two studies on a somewhat similar issue with different results. These contradictory findings show the limitations of any single research study. Gender pay inequity exists (more objective fact) and likely has many causes. When different studies report different causes (if the research is of high quality) it reinforces the need to encourage multiple studies before drawing any definitive conclusion. Thanks for helping us learn the benefits of research, according to Dave Ulrich

Considering decades of studies show women leaders help increase productivity, enhance collaboration, inspire organizational dedication, and improve fairness, yet only 10% of Fortune 500 companies are led by women…. The bigger issue is likely “gender inequity,” sprinkled with a few dashes of biases. Depending on each negotiation’s participants’ values, budgets, compensation philosophy, etc. I suspect focusing on women’s willingness or abilities to negotiate does not tell the whole “data story.” according to Kelley J. Finnegan

If you've enjoyed this piece, don't hesitate to press like, comment on what you think, and share these articles with your network.

??Finally, I'll be in just 2 weeks at #Unleashworld in Paris! UNLEASH

My people analytics topic will be what data and metrics can employers use to measure and attract employees to the office? What are the core considerations for the workplace of the future and does “Where” people work become more important than “Why”? I hope to meet many of you!

?? Follow me on?LinkedIn , and click the ?? at the top of my profile page to stay on top of the latest on new best?HR, People Analytics, Human Capital and Future of Work research, become more effective in your HR function and support your business, and join the conversation on my posts.

?? We are more than 10,000 subscriptions! Thank you so much for your support! ??if you haven't already, subscribe to receive my?Weekly People Research

Everyday, I share a new research article about?People Analytics, Human Capital, HR analytics, Human Resources, Talent,….

Let's spread the HR knowledge together and understand the Future of Work!

That's it for last week's recap - Happy Sunday and wishing you health and success?!???

Thank you,

Nicolas BEHBAHANI

#futureofwork ?#peopleanalytics ?#hr